We’re flooded by guaranteed income pilot experiments that offer some promising results, but don’t seem to be moving us any closer to actual federal policy. However, I would like to rescue in this post some findings published from the largest randomized basic income experiment in the US to date, backed by Sam Altman and OpenAI.

The study, held from November 2020 through October 2023, gave 1,000 recipients $1,000 per month, with absolutely no conditions. It’s one of the biggest and longest trials ever run on direct cash giving. Many other basic income pilots have given people $500 or less, and rarely for more than a year or two.

While the study was run by a group of academics, it was set in motion by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. For years, Altman has been publicly worrying that basic income will become necessary as AI eliminates traditional jobs while creating huge stockpiles of wealth held by a few. Altman isn’t alone. Many major figures in the tech world, from Elon Musk to the “godfather of AI,” Geoffrey Hinton, believe AI will usher a wave of technological unemployment, and basic income will become necessary to keep us all afloat.

However, the permanent argument of linking a basic income to automation and AI and the fears of rapid AI progress makes it far more vulnerable than it needs to be. If there’s no great wave of AI-driven unemployment, or if the AI bubble bursts, support for basic income would fall, too.

Many basic income supporters believe that the near deployment of Generated AI in our society and industries will eventually lead to the need of a basic income. The argument that UBI (Universal Basic Income) is necessary to fight automation did not, of course, originate with Sam Altman.

One of the idea’s most vocal advocates is former Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern, who championed basic income in his 2016 book Raising the Floor. It’s the basis of the most optimistic and sweeping left-wing cases for basic income too, as in books like Peter Frase’s recommended Four Futures or Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams’s Inventing the Future.

Results of Altman’s experiment

The study gave out monthly checks to people between the ages of 21 and 40 living in Texas and Illinois. To qualify, their 2019 household income had to be less than 300% of the federal poverty line: that would mean $77,250 for a family of four, or $37,470 for an individual. The average participant’s household income in 2019 was about $30,000. One thousand people were randomized into the treatment group and received the full $1,000 per month, while another 2,000 were part of a control group that got $50 per month.

Recipients spent an average of $310 more per month, mostly on housing, food, and car expenses. Overall, however, their incomes fell by about $125 per month, excluding the transfers. The drop in earnings was largely driven by people choosing to work a little less (since the transfers meant they still came out ahead). In total, labour market participation declined by 2%, cashing out as working about 1.3 hours less per week, or roughly eight fewer days of work over the course of a year.

The researchers found participants used the funds to buy essentials like food, rent and transportation, not vices. While the cash couldn’t fix underlying health problems or reverse years of inadequate access to care participants were also able to dedicate more time to their health care, with a better chance of going to the dentist and 26% more hospital visits than the control group.

The organization has released a trio of research papers on its findings.

As for whether the cash changed recipients’ relationship to the labour market, researchers said the findings showed that, again, it depends. Overall, both groups worked a little more by the end of the study period, in part because the payments started as the Covid-19 pandemic raged and ended after the economy started to bounce back. That doesn’t mean they were all working the same amount: On average, people getting the full $1,000-a-month payments worked a little over an hour less each week than the people getting $50 a month. Single parents, especially, seemed to cut down on work hours slightly, a choice researchers said allowed them to take more flexible jobs and spend more time with their kids. And this point is very important, and will be discussed in next section:

Did Sam Altman’s experiment work?

Before we get into the results, for those who aren't already familiar with prior findings, here's the conclusion of a peer-reviewed 2020 study of 38 studies:

"Despite a detailed search, we have not found any evidence of a significant reduction in labour supply. Instead, we found evidence that labour supply increases globally among adults, men and women, young and old, and the existence of some insignificant and functional reductions to the system such as a decrease in workers from the following categories: Children, the elderly, the sick, those with disabilities, women with young children to look after, or young people who continued studying. These reductions do not reduce the overall supply since it is largely offset by increased supply from other members of the community."

We could read in many news that the UBI experiment of Sam Altman failed, as it proved that people preferred leisure time. However, let’s deep again into data:

In total, labour market participation declined by 2%, cashing out as working about 1.3 hours less per week, or roughly eight fewer days of work over the course of a year.

The reason that parents respond differently should be obvious. They aren't working less. They are switching from paid work to unpaid work. They're putting their kids first. If it costs $1,200 a month to earn anything under or barely above $1,200 a month, a job does not make sense. Remember that everyone in this pilot was older than 21 and younger than 40 and that we know from previous basic income experiments that young adults tend to choose more education and less employment.

So I’m not afraid to reject people turning lazy when they receive a basic income. Maybe we should rethink this framework of UBI and also discuss Universal Basic Leisure.

Perhaps it's time to shift our perspective on UBI away from both the AI automation narrative and the oversimplified "lazy vs. hardworking" debate. The real value of Altman's experiment, like many before it, lies in showing how guaranteed income enables people to make meaningful choices about their time and labour. The modest 1.3-hour reduction in weekly work wasn't about people abandoning productivity – it was about parents spending more time with children, young adults pursuing education, and participants making strategic decisions about their work-life balance. Rather than viewing UBI as either a solution to future AI displacement or a test of human motivation, we should see it as a tool that gives people the freedom to contribute to society in ways that aren't always captured by traditional labor metrics. The question isn't whether people will work, but rather how they might work differently when given the chance to truly choose.

We’ll see.